Posted on 05/16/2013 7:04:15 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Benghazi Emails Directly Contradict White House Claims Stephen F. Hayes May 16, 2013 12:09 AM
The White House on Wednesday released 94 pages of emails between top administration and intelligence officials who helped shape the talking points about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that the CIA would provide to policymakers in both the legislative and executive branches.
The documents, first reported by THE WEEKLY STANDARD in articles here and here, directly contradict claims by White House press secretary Jay Carney and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the revisions of those talking points were driven by the intelligence community and show heavy input from top Obama administration officials, particularly those at the State Department.
The emails provide further detail about the rewriting of the talking points during a 24-hour period from midday September 14 to midday September 15. As THE WEEKLY STANDARD previously reported, a briefing from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence shows that the big changes came in three waves – internally at the CIA, after email feedback from top administration officials, and during or after a meeting of high-ranking intelligence and national security officials the following morning.
The initial CIA changes softened some of the language about the participants in the Benghazi assault – from “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda” to “Islamic extremists.” But CIA officials also added bullet points about the possible participation of Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked jihadist group, and previous warnings about the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi. Those additions came out after the talking points were sent to “the interagency,” where the CIA’s final draft was further stripped down to little more than boilerplate. The half dozen references to terrorists – both in Benghazi and more generally – all but disappeared. Gone were references to al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, etc. The only remaining mention was a note that “extremists” had participated in the attack.
As striking as what appears in the email traffic is what does not. There is no mention of the YouTube video that would become a central part of the administration’s explanation of the attacks to the American people until a brief mention in the subject line of emails coming out of an important meeting where further revisions were made.
Carney, in particular, is likely to face tough questioning about the contents of the emails because he made claims to reporters that were untrue. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two – of these two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility,’ because the word ‘consulate’ was inaccurate,” he told reporters on November 28, 2012.
That’s not true. An email sent at 9:15 PM on September 14, from an official in the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs to others at the agency, described the process this way. “The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document. We revised the document with their concerns in mind.”
That directly contradicts what Carney said. It’s also difficult to reconcile with claims made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during testimony she gave January 23 on Capitol Hill.
“It was an intelligence product,” she said, adding later that the “intelligence community was the principal decider about what went into talking points.” (See here for the original version of the talking points and the final one.)
Carney and other top Obama administration officials have long maintained that CIA officials revised the talking points with minimal input from Obama administration officials. The claim made little sense when they made it – why would CIA officials revise on their own a set of talking points they’d already finalized? The emails demonstrate clearly that it isn’t true.
Another CIA email, this one a draft of a message for CIA director David Petraeus, noted that the talking points process had “run into major problems,” in part because of the “major concerns” raised by the State Department. That same email reported that the issues would be revisited at the Deputies Committee meeting on Saturday morning.
Elsewhere, CIA officials seemed to understand that the document had been stripped of most of its content. An email from an official with the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis, the office that drafted the original version of the talking points, signed off on the final version but seemed to understand that the new version wouldn’t please those who had requested it. “They are fine with me,” this CIA official wrote. “But, pretty sure HPSCI [the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence] won’t like them. :-)”
When Petraeus received the rewritten talking points, he objected. “Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this,” he wrote to a legislative affairs staffer. But he declined to put up a fight.
The documents answer some questions and raise many others. Did Hillary Clinton have any role in the efforts of State Department staffers to push for the many substantive revisions to the talking points? Clinton, who testified that she was a hands-on part of the State Department’s response to the attacks, has claimed she had nothing to do with the talking points.
And what about the administration’s claims that State and White House officials weren’t involved with substantive edits? In one email, Jake Sullivan, deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton, reports to State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland that he’s spoken with Obama’s top spokesman at the National Security Council, Tommy Vietor. “I spoke with Tommy. We’ll work through this in the morning and get comments back.”
In a separate email, he writes: “Talked to Tommy. We can make edits.”
When are they gonna start jailing some of these lying treasonous ba$tards?
Yesterday Obama said he would take questions today. We’ll see.
I have never posted that in my whole FR career so it's marked off my bucket list
I would like to know who came up with the idea to say it was an obscure video, who found Nakoula so fast after the attack, and who ordered his arrest.
How did they know about this man to be able to use him and his video so quickly. Did the State Dept. know an attack on the Embassy was going to occur on 9-11 and did they have a contingency plan in place (video) knowing that Clinton had withdrawn the extra security and her decisions must not be questioned.
Now we know the video had nothing to do with the attack. This whole thing was planned well in advance of the attack. They need to question someone on who found this man, and when did they really find him.
Hillary Clinton and Obama both knew from the start that this attack had nothing to do with the baloney video. Yet, they used hard-earned American taxpayer dollars to produce and air a commercial in the Middle East where they apologize for the baloney video. Why? Because the commercial was part of the political coverup. They used American tax dollars for a political coverup, and, I do believe that meets the standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors” whereby our Constitution requires an impeachment proceeding.
She’s up to her eyeballs in this, along with obama and his pal, val (and all the rest).
Just like everything obama has his hand on, the current State Department is staffed with corruption and/or useful idiots.
I’m still wondering why Glen Doherty was sent out to give an interview with ABC news that exposed his mission in Libya.
I can’t make myself believe that a man of Doherty’s intelligence would have done that interview without orders from high up. A month later he’s dead.
Cameron was last. Now PM of Turkey....
Next....Maybe a beer with OJ on the Whitehouse Lawn...near Michelle's vegetables....
which were originally planted in toxic soil.
I wonder why no one has developed a method to effectively backdate emails.Surely some sort of malicious program could be built that would change the records in an archive to show an email had been archived at some convenient date and time. Obviously I am not any sort of programmer.
slightly off topic question: anyone know the time for Carney’s presser today...it’s no on C-span’s schedule..I assume it will be after Obama’s at noon...
The lies cover up the real crime: Running guns to Al Qaeda in Syria.
Keep shoveling, and you’ll find TREASON at the bottom of the hole.
It suggests the question of what did Stevens know that the administration preferred that no one else find out?
It is important to know who decided to introduce the lie that a video was at fault
1. The Libyan president correctly claimed that it was an AQ attack. The US government contradicted and embarrased the Libyan government with the video lie. Because the attacks were blamed on a video, the FBI was refused admission into Libya to investigate.
2. The blame of a video instigated riots in Indonesia.
3. We were lied to by a government that is suppsed to serve us. Rice lied on TV. Clinton lied to the press and in front of Congress. Obama mislead the UN. Money was spent to lie in foreign ads to apologize for the video.
4. The video maker is still in jail. A clear 1st ammendment rights violation. The video maker was rousted out of bed at 2 am by a team of sheriffs. Who ordered them to do so, and did they really believe that a sleeping man was a flight risk or was it all show?
We STILL don’t know where the video lie was introduced.
Surprise, surprise...
Grammar Nazi: "I'd just assume not use this."
Editor: stet
Gen. Petraeus is correct.
“I’m Shocked To Find That There Is Gambling Going On In This Establishment”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Here’s your winnings, sir.”
Unless, of course, the "tapes" have some "blank" sections. Hehe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.